Author
Topic: God does heal amputees (Read 51794 times)

Lucifer...you mean, I refuse to bend to your interpretation of what is science and what is not. I get it...Time to whip out the I'm smarter than you are card....if that makes you feel better about yourself, be my guest. It's what you do. You like to use science when it suits your purpose. But when it refutes your position, like in evolutional claims, you begin the deception tactic...lets demean this guy and call him names because I don't have a clue.

Nice try you devil you.....oh...sorry...he never existed did he....do you?

Back to evolution, say cosmic evolution. Where in the science books does it succinctly say, the universe was created by the big bang? Most will say, they think it happened that way, or we are led to postulate it might have happened that way, but not one scientist will tell you that the creation of the universe was observed, tested and documented. So it is a belief system that you choose to adopt, because the burden of proof you expect the Christian to give for Gods creation is given a free pass on evolution. It takes more faith to believe that than to believe in the bible. Now you can believe in the Big Bang, or the cookie monster, or the lochness monster, or santa....but it is not science by sciences definition.On the other hand, i would propose that the very meaning of the word Universe, or translated as Uni = single and Verse = a spoken sentence, gives an insightful meaning into the origins. And I just happen to know the sentence .....Let there be light!

(my bold)Oh please stop before you go deeper into what Kent Hovind says...

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Back to evolution, say cosmic evolution. Where in the science books does it succinctly say, the universe was created by the big bang? Most will say, they think it happened that way, or we are led to postulate it might have happened that way, but not one scientist will tell you that the creation of the universe was observed, tested and documented. So it is a belief system that you choose to adopt, because the burden of proof you expect the Christian to give for Gods creation is given a free pass on evolution. It takes more faith to believe that than to believe in the bible. Now you can believe in the Big Bang, or the cookie monster, or the lochness monster, or santa....but it is not science by sciences definition.

On the other hand, i would propose that the very meaning of the word Universe, or translated as Uni = single and Verse = a spoken sentence, gives an insightful meaning into the origins. And I just happen to know the sentence .....Let there be light!

If you want to argue the validity of evolution or the Big Bang, I suggest you start posting on one of the threads in that subforum. That would be more appropriate.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

On the other hand, i would propose that the very meaning of the word Universe, or translated as Uni = single and Verse = a spoken sentence, gives an insightful meaning into the origins. And I just happen to know the sentence .....Let there be light!

What nonsense.

The 'verse' part of 'universe' comes from the past participle, versus, of the Latin verb vertere, to turn.

The word UNIVERSE comes from two primitive roots: UNI, meaning 'one' and VERSA, meaning 'BODY OF WORDS'! Therefore, the Lord's entire creation is called: 'ONE BODY OF WORDS'! But with its Creator being named 'WORD,' this should not be surprising. P.S. 'Verse' also stems from another root, 'versus,' as in a court decision (i.e. Smith versus Smith) and means literally 'being turned toward'; thus making the word, UNIVERSE, also mean 'ONE BEING TURNED TOWARD."

You can slice and dice any way you see fit. One body of words...instead of a single spoken sentence. You can even say One being turned toward....but it all adds up to the same thing. And GNU Ordure is not all he is cracked up to be :-D

The word UNIVERSE comes from two primitive roots: UNI, meaning 'one' and VERSA, meaning 'BODY OF WORDS'! Therefore, the Lord's entire creation is called: 'ONE BODY OF WORDS'! But with its Creator being named 'WORD,' this should not be surprising. P.S. 'Verse' also stems from another root, 'versus,' as in a court decision (i.e. Smith versus Smith) and means literally 'being turned toward'; thus making the word, UNIVERSE, also mean 'ONE BEING TURNED TOWARD."

You can slice and dice any way you see fit. One body of words...instead of a single spoken sentence. You can even say One being turned toward....but it all adds up to the same thing. And GNU Ordure is not all he is cracked up to be :-D

From Wiki

The word universe derives from the Old French word Univers, which in turn derives from the Latin word universum.[8] The Latin word was used by Cicero and later Latin authors in many of the same senses as the modern English word is used.[9] The Latin word derives from the poetic contraction Unvorsum — first used by Lucretius in Book IV (line 262) of his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) — which connects un, uni (the combining form of unus', or "one") with vorsum, versum (a noun made from the perfect passive participle of vertere, meaning "something rotated, rolled, changed").[9]

Artistic rendition (highly exaggerated) of a Foucault pendulum showing that the Earth is not stationary, but rotates.An alternative interpretation of unvorsum is "everything rotated as one" or "everything rotated by one". In this sense, it may be considered a translation of an earlier Greek word for the universe, ????????, (periforá, "circumambulation"), originally used to describe a course of a meal, the food being carried around the circle of dinner guests.[10] This Greek word refers to celestial spheres, an early Greek model of the universe. Regarding Plato's Metaphor of the sun, Aristotle suggests that the rotation of the sphere of fixed stars inspired by the prime mover, motivates, in turn, terrestrial change via the Sun. Careful astronomical and physical measurements (such as the Foucault pendulum) are required to prove the Earth rotates on its axis.

A term for "universe" in ancient Greece was ?? ??? (tó pán, The All, Pan (mythology)). Related terms were matter, (?? ????, tó ólon, see also Hyle, lit. wood) and place (?? ?????, tó kenón).[11][12] Other synonyms for the universe among the ancient Greek philosophers included ?????? (cosmos) and ????? (meaning Nature, from which we derive the word physics).[13] The same synonyms are found in Latin authors (totum, mundus, natura)[14] and survive in modern languages, e.g., the German words Das All, Weltall, and Natur for universe. The same synonyms are found in English, such as everything (as in the theory of everything), the cosmos (as in cosmology), the world (as in the many-worlds hypothesis

"Universe comes to us directly from Latin. The Latin word 'universum' means the whole world. It stems from the Latin ''unu' meaning one and 'versus' the past participle of 'vertere' meaning to turn. The word 'universe' appears in Middle English in the year 1385 in Chaucer's troilus and Criseyde'. The English word 'universe' means the entire WORLD not 'word'."

Twit.

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

But how does evolution fit even remotely into that category? The only evolution that scientifically has been proven is micro evolution...or variations. Dogs produce other kinds of dogs, cats produce variations of cats, but a mouse doesn't produce a variation of a Giraffe. those Macro events could never be found by Darwin, ever. The missing link so to speak. However, In Genesis, God commands that the land produce animals according to their own kind.

You're arguing a strawman's version of evolution. Next time, try reading an actual science book, not some silly piece of creationist garbage.

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."...

Humans and chimps originate from a common ancestor...

Also, here is a link to an interactive slideshow of some important fossil evidence:

In 2004, scientists digging in the Canadian Arctic unearthed fossils of a half-fish, half-amphibian that all but confirmed paleontologists' theories about how land-dwelling tetrapods–four-limbed animals, including us–evolved from fish. It is a classic example of a transitional form, one that bridges a so-called evolutionary gap between different types of animal.

If you want to attempt to refute this, B2, you will need to provide some of your own evidence.

sol·ip·sism? ?[sol-ip-siz-uhm] Show IPAnoun1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.

You should get an A+ for using big words that have nothing to do with the conversation Curious. Bravo

CURIOUS GIRL,

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

Found it over at Christian net ....I will be glad to provide the link. We can play ping pong all day if you'd like. National Geographic? Nova, PBS, long standing Atheist slanted publications.

Your link is just another in a long line of "could be, might be, we think etc...sounds like a belief system...Proves nothing.

Alzael, wow...I've been promoted to twit. Cmon, you guys are cutting and pasting like me. What about the part that says, turned into one, from one....HE seems to always be in there somewhere doesn't HE.Gnu Ordure: Id I were Alzael, i'd charge you for doing all your work for you.

Ambassador Pony. bm? best mate? best material? bravo man!! I see you are efficient. A gentleman and a scholar!!

Aaron 123, Exactly. is there anything more than a strawman's version of that crap? Actual science books. are you serious? They are completely vague and have nothing to offer but Atheistic theories/religious views or beliefs about evolution. lets see class....something came from nothing. No really...it did...just close your eyes and try to imagine it...cmon. Scientists spend years and years looking at this stuff and that's what we get? hey, it's your dollar. At least we have the common courtesy to tell our kids the truth, that God created the universe. Not....we don't know. man sure has come a long way in your world view. Sorry, You apes have come a long way.....

...that God created the universe. Not....we don't know. man sure has come a long way in your world view. Sorry, You apes have come a long way.....

ignore the rest. Prove your god created the universe. Prove it. Either prove it or shut the fuck up.

What's so wrong with saying that we don't know. The best we are doing by saying 'I Don't Know' is giving our kids a sense that there might be a natural reason. All you are doing is giving them a false sense of hope.

« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 10:09:43 PM by Emily »

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

b2 - you need to go read the forum rules right now. You are starting off on the wrong foot, and our long standing members don't deserve this trolling you are doing. You need to back up each of your claims with some kind of evidence. I'm not in the mood to hold your hand when you start off with crap like this.

They are completely vague and have nothing to offer but Atheistic theories/religious views or beliefs about evolution.

Strawmen.

Quote

lets see class....something came from nothing. No really...it did...just close your eyes and try to imagine it...cmon. Scientists spend years and years looking at this stuff and that's what we get? hey, it's your dollar.

First of all, this is a strawman. Second, you're changing the subject. The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.

Quote

At least we have the common courtesy to tell our kids the truth, that God created the universe. Not....we don't know.

Saying "we don't know" is not lying. Again; this has nothing to do with evolution.

Quote

man sure has come a long way in your world view. Sorry, You apes have come a long way.....

Seriously, how old are you? You're either very young or very immature if you're resorting to name-calling.

sol·ip·sism? ?[sol-ip-siz-uhm] Show IPAnoun1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.

You should get an A+ for using big words that have nothing to do with the conversation Curious. Bravo

LOL. You obviously have NO CLUE that you fell into the intellectual pit of solipsism when you said this to Lucifer: " he never existed did he....do you?"

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

Found it over at Christian net ....

How entertaining. Comparing sentences to DNA? Simply ignorant. You would have to assume that the same rules for the English language apply to biochemistry. Utterly ridiculous.

That does not refute DNA evidence, which is commonly accepted by the scientific community. I am betting that those at "Christian net" have as poor of a grasp of the concept of evolution as you do.

You said nothing about the fossils I mentioned. I guess you feel like if you pretend the evidence is not there, then you can go on being willfully ignorant.

Alzael, wow...I've been promoted to twit. Cmon, you guys are cutting and pasting like me. What about the part that says, turned into one, from one....HE seems to always be in there somewhere doesn't HE.

What about it? It's not what you defined the word as meaning in your previous set of rambling. So you're trying to imply that your god was turned into the universe, hence the word universe clearly refers to god.

With bang-up, new wave thinking like that it's a wonder that you haven't fulfilled Gnu's claims of backing yourself up yet.

I'm guessing English isn't your first language is it?

Logged

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.Spartan Reply: If.

Ahhhh...I see jaimehlers, you believe that it's a big hoax. How is that possible? The entire bible, made up in an effort to deceive all humanity? You give humans way to much credit. We're not that smart.

Read what I said and don't make assumptions. I never said I thought it was a big hoax. The fact that someone earnestly or fervently believes in something that isn't true does not make it true.

Regarding your later 'points' about evolution, I must point out that your idea that evolution predicts that a mouse will suddenly produce a giraffe-like animal out of nowhere is a strawman. It is an idea you made up, not one that is actually found anywhere in evolutionary theory. What evolutionary theory actually says is that a population will adapt to its environment, and will change based on pressures in that environment. These changes will occur over many generations, so you will never see a mouse one generation and a tiny giraffe the next. But you might see a long progression of mouse generations with longer and longer necks, and longer and longer legs.

Science is based around examining the evidence, coming to conclusions based on it, and being willing to revisit those conclusions if further evidence invalidates them. Whereas your religious beliefs are based on a literary allusion, and not even a very good one. Come on, seriously, universe = "one spoken sentence"? Learn to comprehend etymology before you make statements like that.

The Roman roots of universe (universus) are unus, one, and versus, turned. As others have pointed out, "turned into one".

Your statements about it taking 'faith' to 'believe' in science are nothing more than an attempt to make your own belief system look more reasonable, which is an utter failure. Science does not depend on faith. Science depends on observations, and deductions from those observations. When new observations are made, science must necessarily change the deductions to incorporate the new observations.

You can talk about how you refuse to bend to any other interpretation of science besides your own. If that is the case, then I truly pity you, because you sound like King Cnut, commanding the tides to stop coming in because you do not want to get your feet wet. If you aren't willing to listen to anyone else, why are you here?

Logged

Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!" If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

This issue of the etymology of universe is trivial, in that it doesn't form the crux of any argument going on here. Yet b2 is nevertheless apparently unable to concede a meaningless point, even when all the evidence is against him.

Which doesn't bode well for future discussions with him.

I was searching the web for examples and sources of this idea that the etymology of universe is uni and verse, i.ie. a single spoken word or sentence. Unsurprisingly, the only three or four examples I found were on creationist websites, including one of Kent Hovind's (so kudos to Emily for spotting that one). The only one which cites a reference is interesting, because he cites the same reference as Alzael, the Online Etymology Dictionary. How can this be? How can the same dictionary support two contradictory positions?

See what he did there? Instead of referring his readers to the single entry for universe, he refers them to two entries, the prefix uni-and another English word. As if the word universe was originally formed from two English words, which of course it wasn't.

So he's either ignorant of how etymology works, or he's being dishonest.

Dogs produce other kinds of dogs, cats produce variations of cats, but a mouse doesn't produce a variation of a Giraffe. those Macro events could never be found by Darwin, ever. The missing link so to speak.

I'm going to give you a hint, kid. If your understanding of evolution is anything similar to Pokemon - it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.

Back to evolution, say cosmic evolution. Where in the science books does it succinctly say, the universe was created by the big bang?

Here's another hint: If you think Scientific evolution (the Theory of Evolution) talks about anything other than evolution (in the biological sense; the ongoing changes to species over the course of generations: ie, not astronomy) - it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.

On the other hand, i would propose that the very meaning of the word Universe, or translated as Uni = single and Verse = a spoken sentence, gives an insightful meaning into the origins. And I just happen to know the sentence .....Let there be light!

Even if you hadn't been demonstrably wrong in this assumption, why should this matter? What we call the item in question does not change what it is. We call many things by wierd names.

For example: Is a mushroom a room to be filled with mush; or is it a type of fungus?

...

If you say it's the former - it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.

sol·ip·sism? ?[sol-ip-siz-uhm] Show IPAnoun1. Philosophy . the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.

You should get an A+ for using big words that have nothing to do with the conversation Curious. Bravo

Erm... both definitions are perfect here.By asking if the other person exists (and therefore implicitly asking for proof) as you did in what was quoted of you there, you invoked definition 1. You also are displaying SPAG (self-projection as God) in many places, which perfectly encompasses definition 2.

Now, I can see how you might ignore definition 2, but you couldn't even get definition 1? Since your reading comprehension is clearly lacking, then I think (altogether now) it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross [7].

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

Your example here is actually a very good demonstration of what we're talking about. Even the smallest of changes (in DNA or individual words) with a large base to work with (the entire DNA sequence or an entire sentence) can result in massive changes in "meaning" (humans/chimps or opposite linguistic meanings).

As for "barriers" to cross: I think you're underestimating at least the length of time needed for a major change (usually measured in millions of years). For that matter, you don't even speculate on the rate that mutations occur at. It is in fact, this very reckless disregard for inquiry (as in when you looked down on the phrase "I don't know") that tells me that it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.

Ambassador Pony. bm? best mate? best material? bravo man!! I see you are efficient. A gentleman and a scholar!!

I was considering being nice while explaining that "bm" in this context means "bookmark", but then I realized being nice would prevent me from ending all my sections with: it can safely be said you don't understand what the fuck you're talking about.

lets see class....something came from nothing. No really...it did...just close your eyes and try to imagine it...cmon.

Hoo boy... just like the evolution mistake above, if your understanding of the Big Bang Theory is anything like an infant's understanding of a Jack in the Box, then it can safely be... just... y'know what? I give up. You're a lost cause.

You just make so many mistakes and misrepresentations of your opponent. If we were to liken it to boxing, you'd be the guy attacking the ref while we're waving at you and saying "Hey, buddy! Over here!" You really don't know what you're talking about. You attack concepts we don't hold, misrepresent what we say, and then claim you've beaten us. I mean, we can do that too:

"Hey guys! I just beat Mike Tyson in a boxing match!""Erm, no - that was b2, wearing a Mike Tyson holloween mask and punching the ref..."[1]"Exactly; I beat Mike Tyson!"

I hearby vote that the "strawman fallacy" should be renamed the "b2 fallacy".

Logged

"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

The reason we or anyone else on the planet thinks that the Theory of Evolution is valid is because 1) it has held up under a century of rigorous testing and 2) it works in application and 3) it leads to accurate predictions. It has nothing to do with god or atheism. It is plain scientific fact. If you have evidence that, after 150 years of testing and experimentation, actually counteracts the TOE, bring it on and collect your Nobel Prize. Scientists all over the world are waiting.

By applying the theory, we have invented entire new fields of study like biogeography and forensics and genetics; we have been able to develop vaccines to combat diseases as they evolve resistant strains. We have not only explained the existence of certain fossils, but have accurately predicted what kind of fossils are missing and where on the planet to look for them. (And we have found them where the theory said they were to be found.)

In addition, the theory predicted the existence of genes and DNA so that scientists could look for and discover them. The things that the theory says can't happen (like a cat turning into a snake or a bird turning into a fish) don't happen. And the things that the theory says happened have evidence to back it up.

For example, the theory says that organisms evolve from simple to more complex life forms to adapt to changing environmental conditions. So you never see early mammal fossils that are older than early reptile fossils because simple egg-layers like reptiles predate more complex mammals that bear live young. You find the early spore-producing ferns in existence before more complex pollen-producing seed plants appear. And you can use info from different fields, like geology, to check your work.

Again, it does not matter what you believe. You can still have a flu shot. The science works no matter what religion you believe in. If you want to insist that mammals and reptiles and plants were created all at once you have to deal with the century of evidence that says different.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 05:21:43 PM by nogodsforme »

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

I just wanted to point out why I think the DNA-sentence analogy fails. I am quoting from page 177 of a book called The Evolution of Human Language: scenarios, principles, and cultural dynamics by Wolfgang Wildgen. The book is viewable on Google books.

Words and sentences of a language represent something; they have a referential or a functional meaning. This cannot be said for molecules in the DNA. Even if their control over the production of specific proteins and the role of these proteins is interpreted as "meaning," the problem remains, as large parts of the sequence do not control the anatomy or physiology of the animal in question, i.e., they have no "meaning"....

Typical for base-sequences are long repetitions of the same base; although reduplication of syllables is possible in language, this feature constitutes a mismatch. Thus, the codons of the DNA are not similar to morphemes or words in natural languages.

Although English does not seem to be the author's first language, I think it is not difficult to understand what he is saying. Unlike meaningful sentences, there are parts of DNA that do not seem to have what we would call meaning.

... insulin and penicillin. Animal testing started in the late 19th century. It assumes that mammals, being closer to humans evolutionarily, will have much the same biochemistry. To find out what the human pancreas does, in 1889 Oscar Minkowski and Joseph von Mering operated on a dog and took out the mysterious organ. The side effect was the dogs got diabetes. Back in 1869 Paul Langerhans had speculated that the pancreas was producing some unknown chemical he named as "insulin." It took till 1921 when Nicolae Paulescu isolated it and tested it on a diabetic dog, stopping the symptoms.

The Nobel Prize for it was awarded to 2 Canadians in 1923 even tho they were 8 months later and Paulescu had a patent on his process.

In 1939 Rene Dubos proposed that since bacteria had been around for millions of years[1] the theory of evolution implied that they would develop predators to feed on them. So looking for a natural antibiotic he found gramicidin which could be used against gangrene but only topically.

Alexander Fleming then did a double take and declared he had found one of those what-do-you-call-its in 1928 and had named it penicillin. Other people immediately made the crucial experiments (during the Blitz no less!) and sent the results to America where Americans simply made a big version of their equipment to start processing it. Fleming flew to America to get in a photo-op and crowed on both sides of the Atlantic what a genius he was.

But it was Dubos working straight from the theory of evolution who started the ball rolling.

Dubos later warned that evolution would mean that the antibiotics would lose their effectiveness as bacteria out-evolved them.

In the 1930 edition of History of Mankind H.G.Wells summarized the current research on the age of the Earth. The extreme outside number at that time was 800 million years. Most scientists thought it was less.

The reason we or anyone else on the planet thinks that the Theory of Evolution is valid is because 1) it has held up under a century of rigorous testing and 2) it works in application and 3) it leads to accurate predictions. It has nothing to do with god or atheism. It is plain scientific fact. If you have evidence that, after 150 years of testing and experimentation, actually counteracts the TOE, bring it on and collect your Nobel Prize. Scientists all over the world are waiting.

By applying the theory, we have invented entire new fields of study like biogeography and forensics and genetics; we have been able to develop vaccines to combat diseases as they evolve resistant strains. We have not only explained the existence of certain fossils, but have accurately predicted what kind of fossils are missing and where on the planet to look for them. (And we have found them where the theory said they were to be found.)

In addition, the theory predicted the existence of genes and DNA so that scientists could look for and discover them. The things that the theory says can't happen (like a cat turning into a snake or a bird turning into a fish) don't happen. And the things that the theory says happened have evidence to back it up.

For example, the theory says that organisms evolve from simple to more complex life forms to adapt to changing environmental conditions. So you never see early mammal fossils that are older than early reptile fossils because simple egg-layers like reptiles predate more complex mammals that bear live young. You find the early spore-producing ferns in existence before more complex pollen-producing seed plants appear. And you can use info from different fields, like geology, to check your work.

Again, it does not matter what you believe. You can still have a flu shot. The science works no matter what religion you believe in. If you want to insist that mammals and reptiles and plants were created all at once you have to deal with the century of evidence that says different.

What "rigorous" tests? What new species has formed/evolved in the last 100 years? Name one! Come on you guys! Bacteria (still bacteria) have become more resistant? Wow, that nails it.

What has been observed is the argument creationists use to explain how all the "kinds" of animals fit on the arc. There was no Golden Retriever breed in the 1700s, the breed was bred from guess what? Monkeys? No. Dogs!

Applied how? How are we applying evolution? I know we are genetically engineering seed crops, but, genetically engineered corn is still corn. It has nothing to do with evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is now "scientific fact"? You need to learn the language of science and study more, you have fallen into the kool-aid vat.

What testing experiments in the last 150 years support evolution? Name one please! In fact, all experiments to "prove" evolution have been abysmal failures. Miller experiment (abiogenesis really), fruit fly (the most experimented on animal) to name two off the top of my head.

The fossil record!, come on, even your guys can't agree on how it was even formed or how much original material was present and in what form to even accurately date anything.

And from this non-consensus you blather on about "early mammal fossils that are older than early reptile fossils because simple egg-layers like reptiles predate" blah, blah, blah.

... insulin and penicillin. Animal testing started in the late 19th century. It assumes that mammals, being closer to humans evolutionarily, will have much the same biochemistry. To find out what the human pancreas does, in 1889 Oscar Minkowski and Joseph von Mering operated on a dog and took out the mysterious organ. The side effect was the dogs got diabetes. Back in 1869 Paul Langerhans had speculated that the pancreas was producing some unknown chemical he named as "insulin." It took till 1921 when Nicolae Paulescu isolated it and tested it on a diabetic dog, stopping the symptoms.

The Nobel Prize for it was awarded to 2 Canadians in 1923 even tho they were 8 months later and Paulescu had a patent on his process.

In 1939 Rene Dubos proposed that since bacteria had been around for millions of years[1] the theory of evolution implied that they would develop predators to feed on them. So looking for a natural antibiotic he found gramicidin which could be used against gangrene but only topically.

Alexander Fleming then did a double take and declared he had found one of those what-do-you-call-its in 1928 and had named it penicillin. Other people immediately made the crucial experiments (during the Blitz no less!) and sent the results to America where Americans simply made a big version of their equipment to start processing it. Fleming flew to America to get in a photo-op and crowed on both sides of the Atlantic what a genius he was.

But it was Dubos working straight from the theory of evolution who started the ball rolling.

Dubos later warned that evolution would mean that the antibiotics would lose their effectiveness as bacteria out-evolved them.

In the 1930 edition of History of Mankind H.G.Wells summarized the current research on the age of the Earth. The extreme outside number at that time was 800 million years. Most scientists thought it was less.

Penicillin was discovered by accident ("it just flew in the window"). It didn't evolve, it was around like everything else. And this proves evolution how? We're looking at putting a pigs heart into humans - and this proves evolution how?